BRIEFING PAPER

Number 7687, 15 August 2016

The age of criminal By Terry McGuinness

responsibility
Contents:
1. The ages of criminal
responsibility in the UK
2. Criticisms and calls for
change
3. The Governments’ position

www.parliament.uk/commons-library | intranet.parliament.uk/commons-library | papers@parliament.uk | @commonslibrary

2 The age of criminal responsibility

Contents
Summary 3
1. The ages of criminal responsibility in the UK 4
1.1 In England and Wales 4
1.2 In Scotland 4
1.3 In Northern Ireland 5
2. Criticisms and calls for change 6
2.1 The UN Committee on the Rights of the Child 6
2.2 Children’s Commissioners 7
The Children’s Commissioner for England 7
The Children and Young People’s Commissioner for Scotland 8
Northern Ireland Commissioner for Children and Young People 8
2.3 Law Societies 9
The Law Society of England and Wales 9
The Law Society of Scotland 9
2.4 All Party Parliamentary Group for Children 10
2.5 The Royal Society 11
2.6 The Centre for Social Justice 11
2.7 All Party Parliamentary Group on Women in the Penal System 12
3. The Governments’ position 14
3.1 At Westminster 14
3.2 At Holyrood 15
3.3 At Stormont 15

Cover page image copyright YOT logo by SGGH at English Wikipedia. No

copyright required / image cropped.
3 Commons Library Briefing, 15 August 2016

Summary
The age of criminal responsibility - the age below which a child is deemed not to have
the capacity to commit a crime - is currently set at 10 years in England and Wales and
in Northern Ireland. Scotland has the youngest age of criminal responsibility in Europe
at 8 years of age.
Calls for an increase in these ages of criminal responsibility are not new. Those who
argue that reform is urgently needed point to international standards such as the UN’s
Convention on the Rights of the Child and the higher ages applied in other European
states, to the impact on recidivism rates of early entry into the criminal justice system
and to ongoing research in neuroscience that shows huge individual variability in the
timing of development of children’s brains.
Successive Governments have resisted calls for an increase in the age of criminal
responsibility, arguing that the current age allows for flexibility in dealing with children in
the criminal justice system and is needed so that children may understand that criminal
actions are serious matters.
However an increase of the age of criminal responsibility may happen soon in Scotland
following the recommendation of an expert advisory group tasked by the Scottish
Government with considering the implications of raising the age from 8 to 12 years.
The responses to the subsequent consultation into the advisory group’s
recommendations show support for reform.
In Northern Ireland change is not likely given the Democratic Unionist Party’s
longstanding opposition to an increase from 10 years of age. Whilst a higher age of
criminal responsibility was recommended by the 2011 Review of the Youth Justice
System in Northern Ireland, the DUP views cases such as the murder of Jamie Bulger
as evidence of the need for a younger age.
4 The age of criminal responsibility

1. The ages of criminal

responsibility in the UK
1.1 In England and Wales
The current age of criminal responsibility in England and Wales is ten
years. 1 No child under this age can be found guilty of a criminal
offence.
Until 1998, there was also a legal presumption (known as
The rebuttable
‘doli incapax’) that children aged under 14 did not know the difference presumption that a
between right and wrong and were therefore incapable of committing child under 14 did
an offence. This presumption was rebuttable if the prosecution could not know the
satisfy the court that the child knew that what he was doing was difference between
seriously wrong, not merely naughty or mischievous. 2 However, the right and wrong
doli incapax presumption was abolished by section 34 of the Crime was abolished in
and Disorder Act 1998 and so is no longer in operation. 3 Criminal law 1998
therefore now treats children aged 10 to 13 in the same way as those
aged 14 or over.

1.2 In Scotland
The current age of criminal responsibility in Scotland is eight years. 4
Scotland has the
This is the lowest age of criminal responsibility in Europe. 5 lowest age of
In 2010 the Scottish Executive legislated to provide that no child criminal
under the age of twelve may be prosecuted for an offence. Neither responsibility in
may an older person be prosecuted for an offence committed whilst Europe
under the age of twelve. 6 Children aged between eight and eleven
years can still be referred to the Children’s Hearings System on
offence grounds. Where a child admits or has an offence ground
established by a Children’s Hearing or Sheriff, they then acquire a
criminal record. This will appear on a higher level disclosure
certificate in the event of a criminal record check or on the Protection
of Vulnerable Groups Scheme record.

1 Section 50 of the Children and Young Persons Act 1933 (as amended). The Act
as introduced set the age at eight and this was increased to the current age of ten
by section 16 of the Children and Young Persons Act 1963.
2 JM v Runeckles (1984) 79 Cr App R 255
3 See the Home Office consultation paper Tackling Youth Crime, June 1997 (in
particular paragraphs 3 to 18) and the subsequent white paper
No More Excuses: a New Approach to Tackling Youth Crime in England and
Wales, CM 3809, November 1997 (in particular chapter 4) for background to the
abolition of the doli incapax presumption. The presumption was abolished in
Northern Ireland by the Criminal Justice (Northern Ireland) Order 1998, article 3.
4 Section 41 of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995.
5 The Report of the Advisory Group on the Minimum Age of Criminal Responsibility,
March 2016, paragraph 1.1. See too Child Rights International Network website
(accessed on 15 August 2016)
6 A new section 41A was inserted into Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995 by
section 52 of the Criminal Justice and Licensing (Scotland) Act 2010.
5 Commons Library Briefing, 15 August 2016

1.3 In Northern Ireland

The current age of criminal responsibility in Northern Ireland is ten
years.
6 The age of criminal responsibility

2. Criticisms and calls for change

2.1 The UN Committee on the Rights of the
Child
The UN Committee has repeatedly expressed the view that the
minimum age of criminal responsibility should be 12 years. In 2007 it
issued a General Comment on children’s rights in juvenile justice,
which included the following comments on the age of criminal
responsibility:
32. Rule 4 of the Beijing Rules recommends that the beginning
of MACR [minimum age of criminal responsibility] shall not be The Committee
fixed at too low an age level, bearing in mind the facts of has repeatedly
emotional, mental and intellectual maturity. In line with this rule called for the age
the Committee has recommended States parties not to set a of criminal
MACR at a too low level and to increase the existing low MACR responsibility to
to an internationally acceptable level. From these reflect children’s
recommendations, it can be concluded that a minimum age of emotional, mental
criminal responsibility below the age of 12 years is considered and intellectual
by the Committee not to be internationally acceptable. States
development
parties are encouraged to increase their lower MACR to the age
of 12 years as the absolute minimum age and to continue to
increase it to a higher age level.
33. At the same time, the Committee urges States parties not to
lower their MACR to the age of 12. A higher MACR, for instance
14 or 16 years of age, contributes to a juvenile justice system
which, in accordance with article 40 (3) (b) of CRC [the
Convention on the Rights of the Child], deals with children in
conflict with the law without resorting to judicial proceedings,
providing that the child’s human rights and legal safeguards are
fully respected. In this regard, States parties should inform the
Committee in their reports in specific detail how children below
the MACR set in their laws are treated when they are
recognized as having infringed the penal law, or are alleged as
or accused of having done so, and what kinds of legal
safeguards are in place to ensure that their treatment is as fair
and just as that of children at or above MACR. 7
In 2008 the Committee recommended that the UK raise its minimum
age of criminal responsibility in accordance with the Committee’s
General Recommendation No.10, in particular paragraphs 32 and 33
as quoted above. 8
In its Concluding observations on the fifth periodic report of the United
Kingdom the Committee expressed concern that the minimum age of
criminal responsibility remains 8 years in Scotland, but noted the
Scottish Government’s willingness to address this and its formation of
the advisory group. 9 It again recommended that the UK raise the

7 UN Committee on the Rights of the Child, General Comment No. 10 (2007) -

Children’s rights in juvenile justice, CRC/C/GC/10, 25 April 2007
8 UN Committee on the Rights of the Child, Forty-ninth session – Consideration Of
Reports Submitted By States Parties Under Article 44 Of The Convention –
Concluding Observations: United Kingdom Of Great Britain And Northern Ireland,
CRC/C/GBR/CO/4, 20 October 2008, para 78
9 See section 3.2 of this briefing paper
7 Commons Library Briefing, 15 August 2016

minimum age of criminal responsibility ‘in accordance with acceptable

international standards’. 10

2.2 Children’s Commissioners

In their joint submission to the UN Committee on the Rights of the
Child in May 2016, the UK Children’s Commissioners called for the
UK and devolved governments to raise the minimum age of criminal
responsibility ‘as a matter of urgency’. 11
The Children’s Commissioner for England
In an interview with the Times in March 2010 the Children’s
Commissioner Maggie Atkinson called for the age of criminal
responsibility to be raised to 12:
The age of criminal responsibility in this country is ten – that’s
too low, it should certainly be moved up to 12. In some
European countries it’s 14. People may be offenders but they
are also children. Even the most hardened of youngsters who
have committed some very difficult crimes are not beyond being
frightened. 12
Going on to discuss the case of Jon Venables and Robert Thompson,
convicted of the murder of James Bulger, she expressed the view that
they should not have been tried in an adult court “because they were
still children”.
James Bulger’s mother Denise Fergus criticised these comments:
The trial of the
This woman owes James and me an apology for her twisted killers of Jamie
and insensitive comments. Then she should resign or be Bulger is invoked
sacked. To say that his killers should not have been tried in an by those on both
adult court is stupid. They committed an adult crime – a cold- sides of the debate
blooded murder that was planned and premeditated – and they
were tried accordingly.
[…]
It is a shock to people like Dr Atkinson that children can be truly
evil by 10. But it is a fact and I fear there will be more of them
and we need laws to be tightened up so we can deal with
them. 13
In December 2012 the Commissioner was a signatory to a letter sent
Maggie Atkinson
to the Guardian that called for a raise in the age of criminal drew attention to
responsibility to protect children's rights. It argued: the continuing
…the attribution of full culpability at such a young age runs physical
counter to all the available evidence on children's cognitive and development of a
emotional development. The pre-frontal cortex of the brain, for young person’s
instance, which is important for impulse control and decision- brain
making, continues to develop into the early 20s, more than 10

10 UN Committee on the Rights of the Child, Concluding observations on the fifth

periodic report of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland,
CRC/C/GBR/CO/5, 12 July 2016, paragraph 79
11 UN Committee on the Rights of the Child, Examination of the Fifth Periodic
Report of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland - UK
Children’s Commissioners’ Recommendations, May 2016
12 “Even Bulger killers were just children, says Maggie Atkinson, Children’s
Commissioner”, The Times, 13 March 2010
13 “James Bulger's mother calls for sacking of children's commissioner”,
the Guardian, 14 March 2010
8 The age of criminal responsibility

years after the point at which children are considered by the

criminal law to be as responsible for their actions as a mature
adult. 14

The Children and Young People’s Commissioner for

Scotland
Scotland’s children’s commissioner also backs reform. Speaking to
the National newspaper Tam Baillie called for cross-party consensus
on raising the minimum age of criminal responsibility to at least 12:
“Scotland’s age of criminal responsibility is a matter of long-
standing concern. The country has been criticised on quite a The development
number of occasions by the United Nation’s Committee on the of children was
Rights of the Child. We know that criminalising children at a also stressed by
young age when they are still at a very early stage of their Tam Baillie
development is damaging, stigmatises many of them for life and
reinforces negative behaviour,” he said.
“I welcome the moves by the Lib Dems [a motion at the party’s
conference backing an increase to 12]. I would like to see the
age to be increased to at least 12 and I would like to see cross-
party support on the issue as the parties go into the election.” 15
The Commissioner is of the view that Scotland should work
incrementally towards a minimum age of criminal responsibility of 14
or 16 years. 16
Northern Ireland Commissioner for Children and
Young People
Immediately prior to commencing work as the children’s
commissioner, Koulla Yiasouma addressed common concerns that
raising the age of criminal responsibility would send the wrong
message to troubled children or would result in a large number of
offences going unpunished:
It's baffling that as a society we choose to criminalise 10 year
olds rather than get to the root cause of their offending
behaviour. We'd rather see a handful of troubled primary
school-aged children with a criminal record than support them
to achieve in education or overcome the disadvantages they
face.
[…]
If a child is considered to be a risk to themselves or others it
would be negligent to suggest that they are not held securely Koulla Yiasouma
regardless of their age, in a way that ensures they recognise denied that a low
the impact of their behaviour and decreases the likelihood of age of criminal
reoccurrence. You do not need a low age of criminal responsibility is
responsibility to do this. needed to reduce
Very few children of this age commit crime, despite public risk
perception, and most are convicted of minor offences such as
petty theft or criminal damage.

14 ‘Age of criminal responsibility must be raised to protect children's rights’,

the Guardian, 5 December 2012
15 ‘‘Age of criminal responsibility must be increased’, says Scotland's children’s
commissioner’, The National, 25 February 2016
16 Children and Young People’s Commissioner Scotland, Briefing: The Age of
Criminal Responsibility in Scotland (accessed on 15 August 2016)
9 Commons Library Briefing, 15 August 2016

A child is always a child regardless of their behaviour and must

be treated as such. Evidence from around the world supports us
when we say there are more meaningful and effective ways of
dealing with 10 and 11 year olds that is good for families, good
for communities, good for public safety and just good common
sense. 17
In a presentation in Westminster to the All Party Group on Children
she argued that raising the age is not akin to turning a blind eye to
criminality:
Raising the age is not about “letting young people get away with
it” but ensuring that they are not sucked into a system that
labels them and despite its best effort is not overly successful in
diverting from further offending. 18

2.3 Law Societies

The Law Society of England and Wales
In its submission to the Law Commission’s 2010 consultation on
unfitness to plead, the Law Society stated:
We believe that the age of criminal responsibility is a very
considerable factor in relation to the issue of decision-making The Law Society of
capacity in youth trials. The Law Society is of the view that the England and
age of 10 years is far too low, and that there is a strong case to Wales identified a
be made for raising it to 14 years, with a system in place for continuing need for
diverting those under that age from the criminal justice system a court to
entirely. However, there would still have to continue to be a determine whether
court system in place to decide whether those under the age of or not an alleged
14 years were guilty or not, and where a child lacked decision-
act was done
making capacity the same procedure should apply as in an
adult court. 19

The Law Society of Scotland

The Law Society of Scotland also favours reform. Ian Cruickshank,
convener of the Law Society of Scotland’s Criminal Law Committee,
said:
Scotland’s age of criminal responsibility is currently the lowest
in Europe and we fully support the advisory group’s
recommendation to raise it from age eight to 12. The interests
of the child must be paramount and it is crucial that their welfare
is the focus of attention even in the difficult circumstances of
offending behaviour. We do not think that children under the
age of 12 should have their actions recorded as criminal.
There are also inconsistencies in our law in that the age of The Scottish Law
criminal responsibility is currently eight years, but the age at Society welcomes
which a child can be prosecuted is 12. This creates confusion in reform to address
people’s understanding of criminal law and how it relates to inconsistencies in
children. the law

17 Website of Include Youth, ‘Youth Advocates say 'Ten is too young'’,

9 February 2015
18 Presentation by NI Commissioner for Children and Young People, Koulla
Yiasouma, to Westminster All Party Group on Children, 23rd November 2015
(accessed on 15 August 2016)
19 Law Commission consultation paper no 197 ‘Unfitness to plead’, Law Society
response to the Law Commission’s Summary of provisional proposals and
questions, January 2011
10 The age of criminal responsibility

The current age of criminal responsibility is out of kilter with the

United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. While the
convention does not specify an age of criminal responsibility,
which ranges from age seven or eight to 16 across different
countries, the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child made
its position clear when it said that setting the age below 12 was
‘not to be internationally acceptable’. 20

2.4 All Party Parliamentary Group for Children

During the 2009-10 session, the All Party Parliamentary Group for
Children held a series of seminars on the theme of “Children in the
Youth Justice System in England and Wales”. One of these seminars
considered the age of criminal responsibility. The Committee’s report
of the debate at this seminar included the following comments:
There are two broad consequences of having a lower age of
criminal responsibility [than other countries – see section 4 of
this note for a comparison]. The first of these is the level of
youth custody. England and Wales lock up more children than The APPG report
any other country in the rest of Europe. We imprison four times highlighted the
more young people than Portugal, 25 times more than Belgium impact of an early
and 100 times more than Finland. The earlier a child is drawn age of criminal
into the system the greater the chance that they will re-offend, responsibility on
the greater the chance of creating an antecedent history that recidivism rates
will lead to further custodial sentences.
The second consequence of a lower age of criminal
responsibility is society’s attitude towards young people. An
elevated age of criminal responsibility indicates a society
viewing problematic behaviour through a welfare lens of
disadvantage and need. A lower age indicates a society that
views young people as criminals. This is self-reinforcing. Where
a 14-year-old cannot be prosecuted, services are developed to
respond to their problematic behaviour. Where there is an
option of arrest and conviction, mainstream services do not
have to deal with children over the age of criminal responsibility.
The issue of problematic behaviour is a welfare issue, not a
criminal justice issue.
Other countries look for alternatives to prosecution. In France,
educational intervention is given priority and proceedings do not
take place. In Italy, pre-trial supervision is used and where
successful, prosecution does not ensue. Where a young person
is involved in criminal activities we should be asking how and
why this young person has fallen through the welfare net – not
criminalising them. Adults are not paying sufficient attention to
the needs of the young or identifying early warning signs.
This debate is not about right and wrong. A six-year-old will
The APPG felt the
know the difference between right and wrong but this does not
make them criminally responsible. The debate needs to move
focus on a child’s
away from issues of right and wrong and focus on the question knowledge of right
of what is the right thing for us to do in relation to children of this and wrong was
age. 21 misleading

20 Law Society of Scotland news release, ‘The Society supports recommendation to

raise age of criminal responsibility’, 10 June 2016
21 All Party Parliamentary Group for Children, Children and Young People in the
Youth Justice System: Report of seminars organised by the All Party
Parliamentary Group for Children 2009/10, 2010, pages 10-11
11 Commons Library Briefing, 15 August 2016

The Committee’s concluding observation was that the age of criminal

responsibility should be raised to at least 12 years, the absolute
minimum recommended by the UN Committee on the Rights of the
Child. 22

2.5 The Royal Society

In December 2011 the Royal Society published a report that looked at
the legal applications of neuroscience. One issue the report
considered was the role of neuroscience in determining an
appropriate age of criminal responsibility. It said that neuroscience
was “providing new insights into brain development, revealing that
changes in important neural circuits underpinning behaviour continue
until at least 20 years of age”. 23
The report drew the following conclusion:
The research
...it is clear that at the age of ten the brain is developmentally suggested 10 years
immature, and continues to undergo important changes linked of age is an
to regulating one’s own behaviour. There is concern among unreasonably low
some professionals in this field that the age of criminal
cut-off age given
responsibility in the UK is unreasonably low, and the evidence
of individual differences suggests that an arbitrary cut-off age
the variance in the
may not be justifiable. 24 development of
children’s brains
Professor Nicholas Mackintosh, who chaired the working group that
compiled the study, stressed that the Royal Society was simply
presenting the scientific evidence rather than calling for a change in
the law: it was “for policy makers” to decide on any changes to the
age of responsibility. 25

2.6 The Centre for Social Justice

In January 2012 the Centre for Social Justice, a think tank
The CSJ argued
established in 2004 by Iain Duncan Smith, published a policy report that tackling crime
on youth justice. The report called for the age of criminal would be better
responsibility to be raised from 10 to 12, arguing that “robust served by diverting
responses ... delivered outside of the youth justice system would young people from
better serve justice and be a more effective means of addressing the criminal justice
criminality”. It said that the decision in 1963 setting the age of system
responsibility at ten was “somewhat arbitrary” and had become
“increasingly questionable as our neuropsychological understanding
of child development has advanced considerably”. 26
The report went on to make the following recommendations:
Our recommendations on the MACR [minimum age of criminal
responsibility] include:

22 Ibid, page 15
23 Royal Society, Brain Waves Module 4: Neuroscience and the law, December
2011, page 13
24 Ibid, page 14
25 “Age of criminal responsibility 'too low', experts say”, BBC News,
13 December 2011
26 Centre for Social Justice, Rules of Engagement: Changing the heart of youth
justice, January 2012, page 201
12 The age of criminal responsibility

• Raising the MACR to 12 for all offences in the long term.

Alongside this reform, the youth and family court should
be integrated to achieve a whole-family approach to
offending. Implicit in this recommendation is that an
inquisitorial approach be adopted. However, such a
reform is currently implausible as the capacity of welfare
services to provide support needs to be developed and
public opinion remains uncertain on the issue. Therefore
we recommend:
• Raising the MACR to 12 in the immediate term for all but
the most grave offences (murder, attempted murder,
rape, manslaughter and aggravated sexual assault). This
reform should be implemented alongside the other
proposals of this review which aim to address the
weaknesses in the system, such as investment in early
intervention services and development of custodial
facilities to become more rehabilitative environments.
The report
We are conscious that in continuing to hold children who acknowledged
have committed the most heinous crimes responsible for children in the
their behaviour one likely criminalises those most in need
criminal justice
of help. However, we think this solution offers the best
prospect of improving outcomes for children in the system are often
immediate term. those most in need
of help
• Developing a connection between the youth and family
court in the medium term to allow young people’s
offending to be responded to in the context of their
families. We recommend that this be achieved by
affording to the youth court the power (under s.37
Children Act 1989) to order the local authority children’s
service to investigate whether a child is at risk of suffering
significant harm, and whether the local authority should
intervene to safeguard and promote the child’s welfare
(s.47 investigation under the Children Act). This power
would be available in cases where there were welfare
concerns. 27

2.7 All Party Parliamentary Group on Women in

the Penal System
In March 2012 the All Party Parliamentary Group on Women in the
Penal System published the results of a year-long inquiry it had
conducted into girls in the penal system. The report made the
following recommendation:
Raise the age of criminal responsibility in England and Wales in
line with the European average age of 14 years. The United
Nations Committee on the Rights of the Child has stated that an
age of criminal responsibility below 12 is not acceptable. 28
The report made the following arguments in support of this proposal:
The impact on
Girls can be drawn into the penal system at a much earlier point recidivism was also
in their lives than is the case in many other countries. This a factor for the
increases their chances of coming into contact with the penal APPG
system again, thus increasing the penalties they are likely to
incur for their behaviour and drawing them further and further

27 Ibid, pages 24-25

28 All Party Parliamentary Group on Women in the Penal System, Keeping girls out
of the penal system, March 2012, page 6
13 Commons Library Briefing, 15 August 2016

into the penal system. The decisions made by local authorities

as to how to respond to girls has led to an increase in number
of girls brought into contact with criminal justice agencies such
as youth offending services.
(...)
Girls’ problematic behaviour is often a signifier that they have
welfare needs which need addressing, including poverty, The APPG also
substance misuse or domestic violence and abuse. The expressed concern
argument that criminal justice agencies are best placed to about the welfare
support these girls however is misguided. The outcomes for needs of such
children brought into contact with the penal system, however young people
well-meaning, are poor. 29

29 Ibid, pages 2-3

14 The age of criminal responsibility

3. The Governments’ position

3.1 At Westminster
The Coalition Government repeatedly stated that it would not raise
the age of criminal responsibility. 30
Responding for the present Government during the Second Reading
of Lord Dholakia’s Age of Criminal Responsibility Bill, Lord Faulks
confirmed the Government has no plans to raise the age of criminal
responsibility from 10 to 12 years. He stated:
Although at the moment we are not able to accept that there
should be a change, we none the less share the concern of the The Government
noble Lord, as indeed do all noble Lords who spoke, about the emphasised the
proper way to deal with young offenders. The Government importance of
believe that children aged 10 and above are, for the most part, ensuring children
able to differentiate between bad behaviour and serious understand that
wrongdoing and should therefore be held accountable for their their actions are
actions. Where a young person commits an offence, it is serious
important they understand that it is a serious matter. The public
must also have confidence in the youth justice system and
know that offending will be dealt with effectively.
The Jamie Bulger case casts a shadow over all our
considerations in this area. That case was, I am glad to say, Lord Faulks
very unusual. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Brown, referred recognised the
to the principle of doli incapax. There was a rebuttable impact of the
presumption in 1993, at the time of the hearing, which was then murder of Jamie
removed in 1998. The court in that case specifically considered Bulger on the
doli incapax and decided that both boys clearly knew that what debate
they had done was wrong, and so the presumption was
rebutted.
A number of points were made during the debate about whether
or not the full panoply of a trial at the Old Bailey was really
appropriate for boys of this age. I entirely understand that point.
We have to bear in mind that this was an issue of national
concern and, of course, an absolute tragedy for those
connected to Jamie Bulger. It is difficult for a country somehow
to balance the fact that we are dealing with very young people
with, at the same time, acknowledging the seriousness of
something of that sort.
[…]
Having the age of criminal responsibility set at 10 years allows
flexibility to deal with young offenders. If particular needs are
identified in a youth offending team’s assessment of a child or
young person, the multiagency youth offending team, which
includes representatives from health, housing, children’s
services and education, can refer the child on to other statutory
services, such as children’s services departments and child and
adolescent mental health services, for further investigation and
support. That support can include addressing attendance and
attitude to school, referral to speech and language therapy and,
where appropriate, referring parents to parenting courses. A
youth caution can also be given for any offence where the
young offender admits an offence and there is sufficient

30 See, for example, HL Deb 20 December 2010 cc815-7, HC Deb 20 July 2011
c1107-8W and HC Deb 11 August 2011 c1086
15 Commons Library Briefing, 15 August 2016

evidence for a realistic prospect of conviction, but it is not in the

public interest to prosecute. 31

3.2 At Holyrood
In September 2015 the Justice Secretary, Michael Matheson MSP,
Following the
tasked an expert advisory group with examining the policy, legislative recommendations
and procedural implications of raising the age of criminal of an expert
responsibility from 8 to 12 years of age. The advisory group advisory group and
recommended that the Scottish Parliament raise the age of criminal consultation
responsibility to 12 years. A consultation on making this change ran responses, change
from 18 March to 17 June 2016. Whilst the Scottish Government is seems to be
yet to publish its response an increase in the age is seen as imminent in
‘inevitable’. 32 Scotland

3.3 At Stormont
An independent review, commissioned in 2010 by then justice
minister David Ford MLA, recommended that the minimum age of
criminal responsibility be raised to 12 with immediate effect and that
consideration be given to raising the age to 14. 33 The consultation on
this proposal (and the others set out in the review) closed on 30
December 2011. Whilst Mr Ford and a majority of respondents to the
consultation agreed on the need for change, opposition by the
Democratic Unionist Party prevented an increase to 12 years. 34
The independent review acknowledged that the minimum age of
criminal responsibility is, in Northern Ireland, a ‘sensitive and
controversial issue on which people’s views are often quite
polarised’. 35
In a press release the DUP chair of the NI Assembly’s Justice
Committee, Alastair Ross MLA, explained his party’s opposition:
There are however other proposals that will not achieve political
consensus. The proposal around raising the age of criminal The DUP see the
responsibility has been debated many times before, and whilst Jamie Bulger case
in the vast majority of cases children as young as ten would not as evidence of the
be criminalised, sadly events such as the horrific murder of need for a young
Jamie Bulger illustrates perfectly why the safeguard in the law is age of criminal
required. 36 responsibility

31 HL Deb 29 January 2016 c1574-5

32 See ‘Change in age of criminal responsibility looks inevitable’, the Herald,
13 May 2016; ‘Human rights review shows areas governments need to consider’,
The Scotsman, 8 August 2016
33 A Review of the Youth Justice System in Northern Ireland, September 2011,
page 107
34 BBC News, ‘Age of criminal responsibility could rise says David Ford’,
23 October 2012
35 A Review of the Youth Justice System in Northern Ireland, September 2011,
page 101
36 DUP press release, ‘Ross responds to youth justice statement’, 14 March 2016
 About the Library
The House of Commons Library research service provides MPs and their
staff with the impartial briefing and evidence base they need to do their work
in scrutinising Government, proposing legislation, and supporting
constituents.
As well as providing MPs with a confidential service we publish open briefing
papers, which are available on the Parliament website.
Every effort is made to ensure that the information contained in these publicly
available research briefings is correct at the time of publication. Readers
should be aware however that briefings are not necessarily updated or
otherwise amended to reflect subsequent changes.
If you have any comments on our briefings please email
papers@parliament.uk. Authors are available to discuss the content of this
briefing only with Members and their staff.
If you have any general questions about the work of the House of Commons
you can email hcenquiries@parliament.uk.
Disclaimer
This information is provided to Members of Parliament in support of their
parliamentary duties. It is a general briefing only and should not be relied on
as a substitute for specific advice. The House of Commons or the author(s)
shall not be liable for any errors or omissions, or for any loss or damage of
any kind arising from its use, and may remove, vary or amend any
information at any time without prior notice.
The House of Commons accepts no responsibility for any references or links
BRIEFING PAPER to, or the content of, information maintained by third parties. This information
Number 7687
is provided subject to the conditions of the Open Parliament Licence.
15 August 2016